The Indian Telecommunications Minister met on Monday afternoon with top officials of Internet companies and social media sites, including the Indian units of Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo, to compel them to filter offensive content. The New York Times reportedthat Minister Kapil Sibal met with executives to discuss the possibility for their companies to create internal mechanisms that would prevent any comments the state deemed “disparaging, inflammatory or defamatory” towards political and religious figures.

The companies ultimately told Sibal that it would be impossible to put this in place, especially given the massive amount of data that they would have to oversee. In response to the companies’ position, Sibal declared that they would take policy measures to enact their strategy, though he wasn’t specific on what form this law would take. According to the New York Times, state officials there have already plans “to set up its own unit to monitor information posted on Web sites and social media sites.”

This was a follow-up to two previous meetings. In the first, six weeks ago, legal counsel from Facebook and top Internet service providers met with Sibal to address his concerns over a Facebook page that criticized Sonia Gandhi, president of the Congress Party. Sibal made clear in a second meeting in November that he expected the companies to create human-based, not technological, mechanisms to prescreen and block all “objectionable” material. Despite these repeated meetings and the Minister’s wish to see companies create voluntary systems to block content, the companies remained insistent they do not want to be responsible for deciding what content is appropriate or not appropriate for the Internet.

It is unclear whether the state will cite existing laws in order to legitimize these plans for blocking content. In the past decade, the Indian Parliament adopted the Information Technology Act (ITA) and subsequent amendments, as well as other administrative regulations called the Information Technology Rules (ITR) in order to enact stiffer policies to uphold copyright law in India. It is possible that these laws are used to monitor and block content with little or no oversight.

The Center for Internet and Society (CIS) has monitored content removal requests from the Indian state, comparing the Indian Department of Information (DIT) reports with Google’s transparency reports. They found that there was a big difference in the treatment of blocking versus content removal, as well as the much larger number of content removal requests as compared to blocking.This may indicate that while the ITA regulates blocking, it does not cover the forcible removal of content. CIS concludes from their analysis that “the DIT is not providing us all the relevant information on blocking, or is not following the law.”

While Indian authorities were not able to urge companies to create content blocking mechanisms, it is very possible that they may begin to legitimize their plans under the guise of copyright enforcement. It is currently unclear whether they have the legal mechanisms in place to legally censor content online in the name of political or religious defamation. As we have seen all over the world however, they may simply re-appropriate these existing laws in order to roll forward with their plans to censor Indian citizens at will.

---

For ongoing Twitter updates on the story, follow the hashtag #KapilSibal

Related Updates

The century-old tradition that the Espionage Act not be used against journalistic activities has now been broken. Seventeen new charges were filed yesterday against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. These new charges make clear that he is being prosecuted for basic journalistic tasks, including being openly available to receive...

Earlier this year, a critical free speech law in Texas came under attack. Texas bill H.B. 2730, as introduced, would have gutted the Texas Citizens Protection Act, or TCPA. The TCPA has been one of the strongest laws in the nation protecting citizens against SLAPPs. SLAPP is a shorthand way...

A fight over unmasking an anonymous Reddit commenter has turned into a significant win for online speech and fair use. A federal court has affirmed the right to share copyrighted material for criticism and commentary, and shot down arguments that Internet users from outside the United States can’t...

Today we are launching TOSsed Out, a new iteration of EFF’s longstanding work in tracking and documenting the ways that Terms of Service (TOS) and other speech moderating rules are unevenly and unthinkingly applied to people by online services. As a result of these practices, posts are deleted and...

San Francisco—The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today launched TOSsed Out, a project to highlight the vast spectrum of people silenced by social media platforms that inconsistently and erroneously apply terms of service (TOS) rules.TOSsed Out will track and publicize the ways in which TOS and other speech moderation rules...

When social media platforms enforce their content moderation rules unfairly, it affects everyone’s ability to speak out online. Unfair and inconsistent online censorship magnifies existing power imbalances, giving people who already have the least power in society fewer places where they are allowed a voice online.President Donald Trump...

In the wake of the mass shootings at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, that killed fifty-one people and injured more than forty others, the New Zealand government has released a plan to combat terrorist and violent content online, dubbed the Christchurch Call. The Call has been endorsed by...

The Internet, and social media in particular, is uniquely designed to promote free expression, so much so that the Supreme Court has recognized social media as the “most important places” for speech and sharing viewpoints. Like most of us. government agencies and officials have created social media profiles and...

The First Amendment protects the public’s right to use electronic devices to record on-duty police officers, EFF argued in an amicus brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The case, Frasier v. Evans, was brought by Levi Frasier against five Denver police officers for...

San Francisco – On Monday, May 6 at 11am, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) will argue that a San Francisco court should quash a subpoena from the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society aimed at getting the identity of an anonymous Reddit commenter. Watch Tower is the supervising body...